Abstract (EN)

This paper questions the impact of Bhimani's (1999), Harrison's & McKinnon's (1999), McSweeney's (2002a) and Baskerville's (2003) critiques of Hofstede's model on accounting research. We assess how cultural studies published in accounting journals and referring to these critiques have been conducted. We scrutinise cultural site and unit studied, expected not to be Western nations but other communities. We look at theoretical frameworks used, expected not to be Hofstede's. Next, we look at methods employed, expected not to be questionnaires, but ethnography. Lastly, we assess contributions to theoretical, empirical and methodological knowledge. Using Harzing software we found all papers in accounting journals referring to at least one of the four critiques. 17 papers fell in our remit. These revealed that the four calls have been responded to in a very soft manner, so cultural studies remain influenced by Hofstede's model.